Complainant

Respondent

Anonymised Parties

A Truck Driver

A Waste Management Company

Representatives

Healy O'Connor Solicitors

did not attend 

Act

Complaint/Dispute Reference No.

Date of Receipt

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00038418-001

29/06/2020

Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1991

CA-00038418-002

29/06/2020

The complainant is a truck driver and he commenced employment with the respondent’s waste management business in August 2018. In January 2020, he was summarily dismissed. Three weeks later, following Mr Healy’s intervention, he was reinstated. This complaint is about the failure of the company to pay the complainant’s wages for the three weeks ending on February 6th, 13th and 20th 2020, a net sum of €1,809.

At the hearing, the complainant said that he works four days a week for the company. He arrived at work on Wednesday, January 22nd 2020 and he said that he was told not to come back any more.   He said that his supervisor told him that his truck was damaged. The supervisor advised the complainant to look for a job somewhere else and he said that he would give him a reference. The complainant said that he didn’t want to leave his job. He said that drivers often do damage to trucks hitting barriers and obstacles.

Despite his resistance, the complainant said that the supervisor insisted that he leave his work phone and the keys of the truck and he told him not to come back the next day. However, the complainant knew that he had been rostered for work on Saturday, January 25th, and he went to work as normal. When he clocked in, he found that his name had been taken off the roster.

He then received a letter, delivered to his house at 10.00pm by his supervisor. The letter informed him that he could return to work in the role of a helper. The complainant said that he told the supervisor that he didn’t want to work as a helper and that he wanted his job back as a driver.  

The complainant contacted his solicitor for advice and on January 28th, Mr Healy wrote to the company telling them that their treatment of the complainant was unacceptable. While the employer wanted the complainant to return as a helper, they eventually agreed that he could return to his job as a driver, which he did around February 24th 2020. He attended some induction training, but no additional driver-training, and no arrangements were suggested for him to be observed by a supervisor or a manager while he was driving.

In his evidence at the hearing, the complainant said that since his return, there have been no issues in his job and he received a bonus at Christmas 2020. He said that he is happy to continue working for the company.

The respondent did not attend the hearing.

Dealing with a Disciplinary Issue

At the hearing of this complaint, I asked Mr Healy if the complainant had been issued with a contract of employment or a company handbook, and he confirmed that he had, although copies were not submitted in evidence. As an established business, I am confident that the company handbook contains a procedure for dealing with disciplinary matters related to performance; however, it appears that on January 22nd 2020, no regard was had for this standard procedure. Even in the absence of a formal disciplinary procedure, the treatment of the complainant in January 22nd 2020 was appalling. It appears that common sense prevailed in the long run, and with the assistance of his solicitor, the complainant was reinstated in his job.

The Relevant Law

Section 5(6) of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 addresses the issue of wages that are properly payable:

Where –

(a) the total amount of any wages that are paid on any occasion by an employer to an employee is less than the total amount of wages that is properly payable by him to the employee on that occasion (after making any deductions therefore that fall to be made and are in accordance with this Act), or

(b) none of the wages that are properly payable to an employee by an employer on any occasion (after making any deductions as aforesaid) are paid to the employee,

then, except insofar as the deficiency or non-payment is attributable to an error of computation, the amount of the deficiency or non-payment shall be treated as a deduction made by the employer from the wages of the employee on that occasion.

Findings

The fact that the complainant was not at work for three weeks in February 2020 was caused entirely by the failure of the respondent to deal correctly with a concern about his driving. It appears that these concerns were somehow alleviated when the complainant was permitted to return to his job at the end of February. I am satisfied that on February 6th, 13th and 20th, the complainant’s wages were properly payable.   I find that the failure to pay him his wages is a breach of Section 5(6)(b) of the Payment of Wages Act, and is an illegal deduction.

I have concluded that the complainant is entitled to wages in respect of his employment with the respondent in February 2020 when he was not paid for three weeks. In accordance with section 6 of the Payment of Wages Act, as amended, I am required to direct the respondent to pay compensation as a net amount. The complainant’s weekly net wages in February 2020 were €602.98. I decide therefore, that the respondent is to pay him €1,808.94.

Non-payment of wages, disciplinary procedure not followed